Analysis of NRA on Meet the Press?

[bikepharmer]

Just finished watching Mr. LaPierre on meet the press and believe there is room for improvement.

Schumer is having a field day with it.

The NRA is a really tough spot at the moment. They need to marshal some stats and give some data on how guns are a solution, not the problem.

My suggestions--

• NRA needs to push harder for back ground checks, and arrests of persons who are trying to obtain guns illegally.
  
• They need to concede closing the gun show loophole, but still keep private party sales
  
• They need to promote the sporting aspects (3 gun, marksmanship, etc).
  
• The capacity of mags is tougher. People who know guns will say that we can change a mag really quick...which if we are not careful could back fire in two ways. First, if it doesn't matter, then why are we so worried about it, and two, the left may say then magazines should be gone altogether.
  
• The rhetoric is going to escalate, and has excited as the Pro2A group is, the Anti 2A are just as motivated, and they have a horrible event to exploit.

Even though it may be true, the video game/hollywood argument is not resonating with folks. It is coming across as a diversionary tactic.

What other talking points do you think would help the NRA? I think they need our help now more than ever.

Personally, I think we will be lucky if we can limit the damage to closing the gun show loophole, 10 shot mags, not lose ground on CCW, and preserve the right to own military style weapons.

On military style weapons, we have a long tradition of having access to them. In the 1800's it was muzzle loaders, then lever actions, then carbines starting in the 1900's. I think there is an advantage to the country to our citizens be familiar with the "national rifle" (i.e. AR platform).

 

[M-Cameron]

Private party sales are the " gun show loophole"

 

[bushmaster1313]

My suggestions--

NRA needs to push harder for back ground checks, and arrests of persons who are trying to obtain guns illegally.

That makes sense

They need to concede closing the gun show loophole, but still keep private party sales

That does not make sense. There is no gunshow loophole. Either we have private party sales or we don't.

They need to promote the sporting aspects (3 gun, marksmanship, etc).

Wrong, It Ain't About Hunting. Hunting, and even 3 gun, could be banned under the Constitution.

The capacity of mags is tougher. People who know guns will say that we can change a mag really quick...which if we are not careful could back fire in two ways. First, if it doesn't matter, then why are we so worried about it, and two, the left may say then magazines should be gone altogether.

Good point. California is sort of there already.

The real issue is how much firepower is the average Joe or Jane allowed to have.

 

[Tommygunn]

Analysis of NRA on Meet the Press? ​

Just finished watching Mr. LaPierre on meet the press and believe there is room for improvement.

Schumer is having a field day with it.

The NRA is a really tough spot at the moment.

The NRA has made a very serious blunder.


They got in between Charles Schumer and a TV camera.

You know, I wasn't deeply impressed by Wayne LaPierre's TV performance friday, but Schumer is a total complete jackass.
Or as R. Lee. Ermy says, "jackwagon."

 

[Arp32]

The magazine issue is all relative. Imagine a high capacity ban does pass and then some whack-job does one of these incidents with a revolver. You don't think "evil 6-shooters" will be next?

That's how I justify my opposition to so-called reasonable restrictions when asked.

 

[Tommygunn]

Arp32; Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, used a .22 semi auto handgun with 10 rnd. mags and reloaded 18 times -- and killed more people than Adam Lanza at Newtown.

 

[mg.mikael]

Personally I was very impressed by LaPierre's performance today on Meet the Press......I wasn't however impressed by the host David Gregory who was constantly interrupting LaPierre when he was talking. He looked very unprofessional, like he just started yesterday as he kept getting flustered when LaPierre was making a point, but then again that should come at no surprise he's a pawn for anti gun NBC.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

On your points:
* Prosecuting illegal gun buyers. Strongly agree. They are focusing on the Administration and F&F (rightly so) but no attention on the nameless criminals who need to be prosecuted for doing the same things.
* I think making some sort of background check system available to the public is a good thing. I have never participated in a private party sale, and one thing that makes me nervous doing that with a stranger is that I am pretty sure felons and wife beaters do not wear a sign saying so. In this age of cell phones, how hard is it to let me call NICS?
* The NRA does promote sportsmanship and self defense. They did not hit on it in the last press conference because that was not the main topic. Would have made a good addition though.
* Mag capacity: How can restricting mag capacity reduce the bad guys capability to kill while at the same time not harming my capacity to defend myself? Just a little bit of doublethink there. I do not want to see any mag limitations, but we could always try for a reasonable compromise at 2o rounds.


Video games: I rolled my eyes when I read that part (couldn't watch live). It sounds to me like a hat tip to the "Get off my lawn!" and "Darn kids! Slow down!" crowd. (sorry, adding more stereotypes...) BTW: I am 30, remember playing the original "Wolfenstein" when it was new and have never played anything newer than the original "Doom". Haven't been into video games or played one for years nor do I have many friends who do outside of the brief Wii/Rock Band console craze.

Seriously though, these same video games are also responsible for getting a lot of good people into gun ownership and the shooting sports. Just like gun owners, 99.9% of video game players do not kill anyone either. Now, an unstable, isolated person playing these games may be a problem, but unstable isolated people are a problem with or without the games.
Yeah, wish they had deleted that whole part about video games and promoted marksmanship, sportsmanship and self defense with that time.


School security: A Gallup poll from before the NRA press conference found that 53% of Americans thought school security was the most effective solution. ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/s...link&utm_term=All Gallup Headlines - Politics )

Several school districts and states are already considering letting teachers CCW. Police Chiefs have spoken out in favor of the same. Despite the media saying that "the NRA is out of touch on this" I do not think they are. At least not with about 1/2 the country. This message (right down to the NRA offering free training) is exactly what I hoped they would promote and what I had already sent several letters to Washington about prior to the NRA's announcement.

In my opinion, we NEED to win this one. Restricting guns while protecting our kids with hopes and prayers is a road to more tragedy and more calls for gun restrictions. The face is, with 300 MILLION people in the US, a few are going to be crazy at any given time. Some are going to have access to guns, and if they do decide to go shoot a bunch of schoolkids, it isn't going to matter if they used a revolver or a tommygun. How hard is it to reload a revolver fast enough to kill 6 year olds? Heck, maybe they will just use a bomb or knives? Will it matter to the grieving parents how their kid died? We should all acknowledge that not keeping our schools safer is a road to ruin for gun rights. Like I said, we NEED this one!

 

[FullEffect1911]

I think the most effective means to counter the "assault weapons" ban is to argue the ineffectiveness of the original one from '94 to '04. You can argue it through the crime statistics from the 90's vs now.

I'm not sure exactly how much traction that argument would get. But I do know in arguing with antis, the whole "it's our right to defend liberty" just makes them look at me like I'm crazy. So I tend to steer towards the sporting issues which resonates better on them.

 

[bikepharmer]

RE: private party sales and gun show loop hole

I get that, but in my view gun shows are commercial events, and anyone with a booth is selling commercially. If I sell to a member of my gun club, that is a private party sale. So, I favor distinguishing the two. However, a mechanism for private party NICS checks would be ok with me.

 

[bikepharmer]

I think the most effective means to counter the "assault weapons" ban is to argue the ineffectiveness of the original one from '94 to '04. You can argue it through the crime statistics from the 90's vs now.

I'm not sure exactly how much traction that argument would get. But I do know in arguing with antis, the whole "it's our right to defend liberty" just makes them look at me like I'm crazy. So I tend to steer towards the sporting issues which resonates better on them.

A good point. Like it or not, we are not only in a philosophical battle, but a political battle, and identifying talking points that resonate with a broad audience will be key to reigning in any proposed expansive legislation.

 

[481]

I think the most effective means to counter the "assault weapons" ban is to argue the ineffectiveness of the original one from '94 to '04. You can argue it through the crime statistics from the 90's vs now.

Makes sense to me. Very good.

The Left claims that reinstatement of the 94 AWB will stop these tragedies, yet conveniently ignores the fact that dozens of school shootings (and dozens of fatalities, most children) occurred while it was in effect.

I am sure the anti's will counter that it simply wasn't restrictive enough, but punishing the law-abiding gun owners with more restrictve legislation won't stop the criminals/monsters from doing whatever they want. They'll simply find another means.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Makes sense to me. Very good.

The Left claims that reinstatement of the 94 AWB will stop these tragedies, yet conveniently ignores the fact that dozens of school shootings (and dozens of fatalities, most children) occurred while it was in effect.

I am sure the anti's will counter that it simply wasn't restrictive enough, but punishing the law-abiding gun owners with more restrictve legislation won't stop the criminals/monsters from doing whatever they want. They'll simply find another means.

Precisely. The counter-argument to crime statistics from the AWB era is "The AWB grandfathered all existing AW's, there was already a huge supply of magazines, it still allowed people to own high capacity semi auto military style rifles". So, there's your potential argument for a more invasive AWB.

Answer?

For one: Mexico doesn't allow people to own "assault weapons". The cartels get them from overseas and from Obama. China doesn't allow privsate citizens to own guns at all, combined with a much less free society than ours, and there are still illegal guns there.

Secondly: Gun sales have risen every year since the AWB expired. AW's have grown in popularity during this same time as well. Crime has still fallen.

Thirdly: Military style weapons were exactly what the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A for. The Muskets that the media talks about were the assault weapons of the day. I don't reccomend saying this to most people however because it opens up a whole new can of worms.

Any others?

 

[jj1962hemi]

I think the gun show loophole, if narrowly closed would be OK. Watch the Mayor Bloomberg videos of people going to gun shows and buying/ordering guns from people who are selling hundreds (!) of guns without being FFLs. I know most big dealers are FFLs, but many shows have people who aren't. I think Bloomberg is a poor excuse for a public servant, but his videos are compelling. He has people buying guns as straw men ("It's for me, but I want her to sign up for it because I have some history with the law") from FFLs as well. The law doesn't currently allow for private citizens to buy and sell large quantities of guns, yet they do. This type of thing is embarassing and incendiary and we should get out in front of these illegal sellers.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Nothing should be conceded. Concessions don't work.

 

[FullEffect1911]

I was a little disappointed that when David Gregory was badgering LaPierre about his statement of doing everything we can to protect our kids and trying to link that to also include trying an assault weapons ban, LaPierre should have countered with the fact that we have tried it, it didn't work and go into details about why it didn't work.

LaPierre did sound a bit dodgy to me, but Gregory sounded downright unprofessional and a bit zealous.

Unfortunately the entirety of the media is portraying one side and anytime the pro 2nd side speaks they are shouted down.

ETA:

Thirdly: Military style weapons were exactly what the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A for. The Muskets that the media talks about were the assault weapons of the day. I don't recommend saying this to most people however because it opens up a whole new can of worms.

A clever coworker and friend mentioned that she thinks the founded fathers had no way of knowing how "destructive and powerful" firearms would be and wouldn't have included "assault rifles" in the 2nd. My counter to it wasn't as strong as I would have liked and could only really say that I don't think modern firearms would have changed any of the content based on quotes and writings from our founding fathers outside of the actual constitution and bill of rights. I.E. I tried arguing that the point of the 2nd isn't about hunting and sport without actually saying "it's about defending liberty and our freedoms."

 

[kwguy]

I thought his performance was good. He stuck to what mattered, which was, "why waste time on stuff that we know doesn't work?". The anti's (media hosts) keep turning this into a quid pro quo contest. Always crying the "you have to compromise! How can you not put guns on the table? WE are agreeing with you on the mental health issue!". They sound like petulant brats crying about how something is "not fair". LaPierre doesn't go down that road. It's not about "fair", it's about what works. He knows that, and is sticking to his (our) guns. Not easy with professional Media Court Jesters trying to twist you around on live TV.

Schumer is just a (dangerous) clown that want to distract things.

 

[Isaac-1]

One thing that you may see as off topic, but I feel is important, it is not just the message, but how it is delivered.

We need the face of the NRA to be something other than an old white guy.

 

[bushmaster1313]

We need the face of the NRA to be something other than an old white guy.

Said but true
The Bill of Rights has come down to P.R.

 

[Arp32]

When you guys talk about how the first AWB didn't work, you missing the history of how the gun lobby at the time worked to make it easily subverted. Which leads to the argument that any new ban needs more teeth and needs to ban function instead of having a list of cosmetic features.

The failures of the '94 ban are not a good argument for the future, at least not for us.

 

[pseudonymity]

A clever coworker and friend mentioned that she thinks the founded fathers had no way of knowing how "destructive and powerful" firearms would be and wouldn't have included "assault rifles" in the 2nd. My counter to it wasn't as strong as I would have liked and could only really say that I don't think modern firearms would have changed any of the content based on quotes and writings from our founding fathers outside of the actual constitution and bill of rights. I.E. I tried arguing that the point of the 2nd isn't about hunting and sport without actually saying "it's about defending liberty and our freedoms."

Perhaps your friend should focus on being more informed rather than clever. When the Regulars marched out of Boston on April 19, 1775, they were not just after the small handheld arms of the local militias. They knew that Col. Barrett had stored powder, ball and small field cannon as well. Confiscating the weapons of the militia was half of the goal of the engagement that started the Revolutionary War. The other half was the capture of Adams and Hancock for their published writings criticizing goverment policies. There is a reason that the first and second amendments were required by most states before they would ratify the Constitution.

Tell your friend if she believes that the original intent of the 2A still holds, then she should also be perfectly comfortable with individuals owning small field artillery and anti-personnel devices. Would she allow us to own RPGs as long as their rate of fire was limited to a round a minute or so?

 

[Batty67]

I think that we should concede the so-called gunshow loophole. Er, private sales between folks in the same state. I sold a safe queen Beretta 96 to a fellow CHP holder last summer. Great transaction, but there was no background check. It makes sense and will slow up sales, and get FFLs more money from transfers. It will probably help (NOT stop of course) keep guns out of the hands of criminals and unstable persons. We'd also get to stop hearing about it.

I think hi-cap magazine bans are coming, AWBs maybe. I don't think this is going to blow-over with no or minimal changes. I hope CCWs don't go away...

 

[BoilerUP]

Three separate stuidies done by the Centers for Disease Control, National Institute of Justice, and University of Pennsylvania showed the the 1994 AWB did not reduce gun crime, nor did its expiration lead to increased gun crime.

The UPenn study found that mass shootings went down during the AWB, but the same study said rifles were only used in 2-8% of gun crime before the AWB was enacted so the overall change was negligible. They found high-capacity magazines were used much more often in crime (14-26%) prior to AWB, and that a reduction in high-cap magazines *might* lower crime, but predictions like that were tenuous at best.

"We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence," the study concluded. "And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_exec2004.pdf

 

[M-Cameron]

I think that we should concede the so-called gunshow loophole. Er, private sales between folks in the same state.

i say we concede nothing.......if they want it, i say we make them take if from us kicking and screaming.

where the hell did this defeatist attitude come from all of a sudden?

why are we so willing to appease the anti-gunners?....do you think they are going to say "ok, we have the gun show loophole, you can keep everything else, were done here"......no, they are going to take what we give them and ask for more.

 

[Batty67]

Personally, as much as a stiff middle finger approach to calls for serious gun control would feel right, I think it would backfire massively. Therefore, proactively conceding "low-hanging fruit" issues that makes sense anyhow, like non-background check firearm transactions between private citizens, would seem like a reasonabel approach.

I'm starting to think the NRA's pointing at violent video games and media, and even promoting armed guards at schools, is strictly diversionary/delaying.